Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Heron TSG]

And here's the relevant petition to Obama.

[Aqizzar]

And here's the relevant petition to Obama.

As Senator Dianne Feinstein put it, "Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein."

Heheh heh heheh...

[Trapezohedron]

How come the senate is now obsessed with total control? Here's hoping that the bill doesn't get passed, lest the whole country become an Orwellian Oceania.

Seriously, they could simply accuse others of being terrorists, and capture them if that gets passed, which is very unlawful. Most likely, they're doing this because of Wikileaks' previous actions (expose the diplomatic cables), and they want to arrest them all.

Next thing they're going to do, they're going to return the death sentence.

[Bdthemag]

I have a bad feeling that the future generations will look back and consider the Liberal Crime Squad an accurate portrayal of how life was in 2012...

[PTTG??]

This is not a discussion about republican presidential candidates, thank you.

Funny I don't remember mentioning them.

Ooops. Thought you were talking about Ric Perry.

[Montague]

I'm not sure what legal power this bill is supposed to expand, but I'd point out that the military has always had the power to detain criminals. If somebody trespasses on a military base they can be detained. The guy behind the counter at the gas station has the power to detain criminals.

The National Guard, if mobilized can be granted arrest powers almost identical to that of civilian police.

It doesn't sound like this bill is really doing anything dramatically different. It sounds like it is primarily aimed at allowing the government to treat American-born or terrorists or enemy combatants overseas just like any other foriegn-born terrorist or enemy combatant.

I wouldn't be all that concerned, unless they dramatically expand the definition of "terrorist" as well as arrest powers for the military.

[SalmonGod]

I wouldn't be all that concerned, unless they dramatically expand the definition of "terrorist" as well as arrest powers for the military.

Authorities have been using terrorist as a convenient label to strip rights from just about anybody they please for a long time.

[palsch]

Just to try to make explicit what this bill does;

1) It doesn't add any new powers, technically.

Instead this formalises the current military detention regime which so far only exists legally in administration policy. Broadly speaking, the Bush and Obama administrations have decided what is legal and acted on that basis without any Congressional oversight or formal laws outlining the actual legalities of the situation.

The bill broadly outlines the current administration policies, with a few differences. There is even a paragraph in there that states;

Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

However;

2) It mandates military detention of terrorists.

This is the first major sticking point. Under this bill terrorists must be held in military detention and not civilian. In order to move a captured terrorist, suspected terrorist or prisoner of war (where the war in question seems to be the vague war on terror) the Secretary of Defense must submit, in writing, to Congress why transferring that prisoner is in the national interests of the USA. Depending on how that is applied that could make moving terrorists for civilian trials completely impossible or just keep things the same as they are today.

3) It doesn't mandate military detention for US citizens or legal residents.

Just noting this because it flatly contradicts what most people are saying. The language;

1867 PCS
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

OK, so the language doesn't forbid military detention, but it's not demanding citizens or legal aliens are stripped of their constitutional rights and thrown in military prison at least...

4) It makes prisoner transfers harder.

This is mostly targeted at Guantanamo. There is a specific block on using any DoD funds to transfer Guantanamo bay inmates to their countries of origin or elsewhere. There are exemptions and complications, but it's mostly a roadblock to any attempts at closing the prison. Then the entire next section does the same at blocking any funds from being used to house prisoners from Guantanamo within the USA.

5) Prisoner review.

This bit is actually good, putting into law the current administration's periodic review of Guantanamo prisoners. However, here it comes after the sections blocking transfer to other countries or civilian detention, so I don't see much point in this.



I'd argue that both parts 1 and 5 are good things to have formalised in law. Even if you disagree with the current policy of military detention (which I strongly do under current US law, especially in the current legal climate), having it as law is better than having it exist as legal opinions and memos from the Bush and Obama administrations. It's the only real way I see the policies being reviewed and reformed in the light of day.

The only other alternative to change these policies is to find a presidential candidate who will actually change policy and fight a very uphill battle against hawks in Congress, elements of the military, intelligence services and other administration offices. At one stage I held a hope Obama might manage that. Admittedly not much hope. Now I'm certain we won't see such a candidate till at least 2016 (and no I don't count Ron Paul as a real candidate), and even then I don't see who they might be.

The reason the administration is against this bill are the mandate and prisoner transfer restrictions. The mandate is simply stupid, tough on crime/terrorism bullshit. The prisoner transfer restrictions are a nearly purely political jab at the Obama administration to stop even the weak efforts at closing Guantanamo bay or even thinking of moving away from military detention of current detainees.

[Montague]

I wouldn't be all that concerned, unless they dramatically expand the definition of "terrorist" as well as arrest powers for the military.

Authorities have been using terrorist as a convenient label to strip rights from just about anybody they please for a long time.

Like who? I think you might be confusing definitions for "extremist groups" and "terrorist". The former is notoriously known to be broadly applied so law enforcement can keep tabs on even non-violent and somewhat deviant groups; everyone from PETA, religious cults to socialist book clubs or whatever. The term "Terrorist" or "enemy combatant" is more narrowly defined so its basically limited to people who intend to kill people to further political goals.

If it makes you feel better, if they ever do expand the definition of terrorism to include otherwise benign us citizens, their first targets would be all these right-wing libertarian/christian militia groups.

[RedKing]

Kay Hagen voted for it, eh? I'm so shoc-

Oh. Wait. No I'm not. Kay Hagen is a moronic excuse for a leader who should never have been elected to the Senate.

Word. And I voted for her, though not with much enthusiasm. Still better than carpetbagger Elizabeth Dole, but not by much.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Detention for combatants are Military POW camps. Wars ending or POW exchanges are how such individuals are freed from such detention. There is no label of such an individual as "Wrong".

When you start detaining anyone who is a member of an armed force you are at war with, you are removing their ability to make war on you. It is to prevent such people from being captured again, and is a courtesy done SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL THEM INSTEAD!
Military detention is a humanitarian act in it's design.

Civilian detention for Criminals are designed to respond to infractions against the law. Meeting a set set of requirements as outlined in the Judicial system is required for regaining their freedom from such detention. Trials are typically done to establish guilt or innocence. The Innocent are usually allowed to go free.
Sometimes the guilty are deliberately removed via death, depending on the severity of their crime. Generally nobody is held unless they have been found to be "wrong" through a trial.



Yes, I have a SEVERE problem with detention in a military facility of any group who is not a member of a regular armed force at active war against the United States of America. I think it's the biggest disgrace to this nation. Not only does it jeopordize our own troops by showing a disrespect of the laws of war, telling the enemy NOT to use the humanitarian system that we have established, but it also now threatens all civilian freedom in the United States.

A lack of "Required" does not justify showing approval to the bill. Required means they have to by the weight of law. Allowed means they can if they choose to.
I am against anything that does not result in legal protections for people. Does it matter that the Military can decide not to throw me in Gitmo if they don't want to and think I am a terrorist? Not one scratch, because they can decide to do so, and they are forced to do it if I weren't a US citizen.

The "No-Fly" list has been an essential element of the aviation security - it keeps known terrorists off planes

Like Ted Kennedy
Who here actually trusts the government NOT to confuse you with some other random person? I get mail delivered to my house from people who have NEVER lived there, have a different address listed on the "to", but have a name similar to mine. This is without even being labeled as a terrorist because I actually know how to make several kinds of dangerous explosives without blowing myself up.

I'm glad Udall managed to come up with something to try to get a codification of our illegal detentions shot down. Too bad he failed.

I don't want this legalized. If anything I want the opposite. I want to see legislature enacted that states nobody is allowed to be detained in any way except during an active declared war with them being either a self-declared combatant from the other side or a registered combatant on the other side, with them having the right to appeal their status.
Anyone else goes to our civilian courts and our civilian system, or let go.

(Edit: Some more terrorists for ya.

[Duuvian]

(Edit: Some more terrorists for ya.

Good news guys. Nearly everyone on this forum might qualify as terrorists in Maryland. Well, scratch that off the states I plan to visit, or else I might go to Cuba too.
From the article:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The police also entered the activists' names into the federal Washington-Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area database, which tracks suspected terrorists. One well-known antiwar activist from Baltimore, Max Obuszewski, was singled out in the intelligence logs released by the ACLU, which described a "primary crime" of "terrorism-anti-government" and a "secondary crime" of "terrorism-anti-war protesters."

I'm afraid I have to add the Maryland State Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan to my terrorist list now. This is well deserved due to his "primary crime" of "terrorism-disagrees-with-me" and a "secondary crime" of "terrorism-supports-corporate-warlords-over-citizenry".

Unfortunately we split on whether or not simply being on a list means that taxpayer money must be spent on investigating. In addition I just made my list up for the sake of making a point, instead of investigating groups that sound suspiciously left leaning, such as the dangerous Baltimore Coalition Against the Death Penalty, or the extremist Baltimore Pledge of Resistance Here

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

WHO: The Pledge of Resistance was formed for individuals willing to engage in nonviolent civil resistance to first prevent and later to protest the war in Iraq. It is affiliated with several national peace groups, including the Iraq Pledge of Resistance, the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance and United For Peace & Justice.

Bonus: Whats the difference between this guy and McCarthy? This guy actually DOES have a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccarthyism

[SalmonGod]

(Edit: Some more terrorists for ya.

This is what I was referring to earlier.  It was major buzz a few years ago that there was a huge national watch list of "potential domestic terrorists", and that the criteria for being placed on it were ridiculous.  I remember one manual was cited as listing "excessive quoting of the constitution" as one criteria.  Many people on these lists found themselves being treated differently because of it.  I remember many stories of people being denied flight service for no other reason than they'd been identified at a non-violent protest.

That whole thing has been drowned out over time by other crazyness in politics, though.

Not to mention, organizations such as Wikileaks are often labeled as terrorist in nature, and people who have been involved with them get harassed as such.

So yeah, I'm suspicious of this.  There is definitely potential for abuse.  All the same, it doesn't read to me like quite the free pass that everybody is saying it is for the military to throw anybody in jail that they feel like forever.

Edit:  What laws intended for combating terrorism really amount to...

[Dakk]

Amurka is slowly becoming what many crazy conspiracy theories on THC and crazy futuristic novels relate.

Next step, annexing canada!

[Dsarker]

Oh, they already did that. They just kept it a secret.